91
91
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 91
favorite 0
quote 0
buckets of money in the private sector, including serving on the board of a major contractor with the pentagon. mr. gates gave speeches, lots of them, for which he was paid plenty. but when bob gates testified before the senate, the subject of his private sector earnings never came up. after five hours of non-confrontational questions, the committee volt ford him unanimously. and then when it went to the full senate they confirmed him 95-2. the nominee before, that remember this guy? donald rumsfeld, 2001. donald rumsfeld, of course, had made zillions in the private sector. he sat on the board of a company that was believed to have won a giant contract to help north korea build nuclear reactors. but when donald rumsfeld testified before the senate, they didn't ask about the stock that he held or his roles in international business. they didn't even ask about the north korean reactors. they recommended his nomination to the full senate where he was confirmed in another vote of 95-2. so if history has anything to say about it, then what's happening to chuck hagel right now is not at all normal.
buckets of money in the private sector, including serving on the board of a major contractor with the pentagon. mr. gates gave speeches, lots of them, for which he was paid plenty. but when bob gates testified before the senate, the subject of his private sector earnings never came up. after five hours of non-confrontational questions, the committee volt ford him unanimously. and then when it went to the full senate they confirmed him 95-2. the nominee before, that remember this guy? donald...
69
69
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 69
favorite 0
quote 0
the senate armed services committee was supposed to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from george w. bush. one democratic official working on the hagel nomination told politico, quote, what they're asking is unprecedented, and it's clear that it's information that he's unable to provide. hagel says he can't provide it because it would violate confidentiality of the boards that he serves on. of course, critics say this is about more than incomplete financial records. so why are republicans really holding up hagel's nomination? aaron david miller is vice president for new initiatives at the woodrow wilson center. he has served as an adviser on the middle east to both democratic and republican secretaries of state. and joe klein is a columnist for "time
the senate armed services committee was supposed to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from george w. bush. one democratic official working on the hagel...
48
48
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 48
favorite 0
quote 0
expect that he could return home, and i'll admit that when we first asked him to stay on and lead the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda
expect that he could return home, and i'll admit that when we first asked him to stay on and lead the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself...
106
106
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 106
favorite 0
quote 0
the hand you are in the pentagon. do you know how many times that day the president talked to the chief of staff or to the national security council people? i don't know how many times he was in contact. we were in contact with the staffs there. there was a d.c., which is deputy's meeting of the national security counsel that met that i think five or six or 8:00 that evening. in which everybody was represented including obviously national security team as well as the teams from state and elsewhere cia, dni. in addition to that. obviously our staffs were in constant touch with the white house to alert them as to, you know, what was taking place and what information we had. so there are -- it's just the nature of the white house that presidents of the united states make use of abroad sphere of staff that are involved with the issues to work the issues and continue to be in touch with him as to what is taking place. >> now relative to those unclassified talking points that we're prepared at the request of congress by the
the hand you are in the pentagon. do you know how many times that day the president talked to the chief of staff or to the national security council people? i don't know how many times he was in contact. we were in contact with the staffs there. there was a d.c., which is deputy's meeting of the national security counsel that met that i think five or six or 8:00 that evening. in which everybody was represented including obviously national security team as well as the teams from state and...
64
64
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 64
favorite 0
quote 0
you have to do all the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be hone. i don't
you have to do all the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some...
65
65
Feb 8, 2013
02/13
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 65
favorite 0
quote 0
that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed th-- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are toug
that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed th-- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are...
87
87
tv
eye 87
favorite 0
quote 0
he said there's going to be furloughs at the pentagon, the pay increases for the troops will not be as large as he would like, and then the president today added on to them, said, look, this is going to affect seniors, food safety, the poor. so what they are setting themselves up for is really this argument they are set to have and i think we're going to hear from the state of the union, over these automatic spending cuts that are due to take effect. the president is saying, we cannot let this occur and he's ready to clearly have that fight with republicans on this. >> panetta leaving office with an extraordinary acknowledgement that the defense department, the cia, state department, all of them recommended to the president that the u.s. should start arming, directly arming syrian rebels but the president decided that was not necessarily a good idea. that's pretty extraordinary. >> it was extraordinary. he was asked about it at a congressional hearing. what is interesting to me is someone who covers washington, it's not that there is disagreement at certain points over policy between t
he said there's going to be furloughs at the pentagon, the pay increases for the troops will not be as large as he would like, and then the president today added on to them, said, look, this is going to affect seniors, food safety, the poor. so what they are setting themselves up for is really this argument they are set to have and i think we're going to hear from the state of the union, over these automatic spending cuts that are due to take effect. the president is saying, we cannot let this...